The Right To Bear Arms

[Lesh]

The court hasn't been "right wing" for a long time.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

You funny boy

 

[Who_Me?]

Thank Goodness for Guns:

One morning a guy looked our his window and saw a gorilla in his tree in the yard. Not knowing what to do he began calling pest control companies. After many tries he reached a guy who said he could remove the gorilla from his yard.

So the pest control guy comes out, and with him he brings a baseball bat, a pair of handcuffs, a chihuahua, and a shotgun. The homeowner asked him, "how are you going to get the gorilla with this stuff?"

The pest control guy says, "OK, this chihuahua is specially trained to bite the genitals of anyone that jumps in front of him. I'm going to climb the tree with the baseball bat, I'll hit the fingers of the gorilla. He will fall out of the tree in front of the chihuahua. The chihuahua will bite the genitals of the gorilla. The gorilla will cover his genitals with his hands. You will slap the handcuffs on the gorilla's wrists and we'll take him away!"

The homeowner said, "What's the shotgun for?" The pest control guy replied, "If I fall out of the tree first, shoot the flippin chihuahua!"

 

[danielpalos]

Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy. In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.

Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.

Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it. Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.

Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.

It has more to do with our Second Amendment than your right wing fantasy, Individual and Singular rights.

 

[danielpalos]

No, that's a reason given for the right being protected, but the right itself is independent of a militia.

Not true. How can criminals of the People be Infringed as is customary and usual; if Your point of view is correct?

You're the one who keeps insisting the militia is all of the people, and you keep posting quotes to that effect. Apparently you haven't been noticing that you're destroying your own argument. Are you now saying it's not?

lol. You simply have no logic or reason for a valid rebuttal and Have to resort to right wing fantasy, like is usual for the Right-Wing.

 

[danielpalos]

Of course.
The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.

The State not Individuals of the People.

That's not what it says. You're just making that up.

Yes, it is. You simply have nothing but right wing fantasy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Says nothing about the right of a state to be armed. On the contrary, it says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. You keep missing that vital piece.

That is Your misunderstanding like is usual for right wing fantasists.

 

[danielpalos]

Which has no effect in Arkansas.

It is an example of a State's right. All States have a similar clause.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.

Which of these weapons are not semi-automatics?

they all use the same method to fire

Neither hand gun is gas operated and the shotgun does not have a removable mag. You know nothing

Which has nothing to do with what I said but here you go

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Back To Basics: How Semi-Automatic Firearms Work

The semi-automatic firearm is so standard now that many accept it as the way firearms have always worked.

www.americanrifleman.org

 

[hadit]

Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy. In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.

Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.

Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it. Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.

Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.

It has more to do with our Second Amendment than your right wing fantasy, Individual and Singular rights.

Do I really need to point out that you're vainly introducing new things, hoping to distract from the core subject because you don't have anything left?

 

[hadit]

No, that's a reason given for the right being protected, but the right itself is independent of a militia.

Not true. How can criminals of the People be Infringed as is customary and usual; if Your point of view is correct?

You're the one who keeps insisting the militia is all of the people, and you keep posting quotes to that effect. Apparently you haven't been noticing that you're destroying your own argument. Are you now saying it's not?

lol. You simply have no logic or reason for a valid rebuttal and Have to resort to right wing fantasy, like is usual for the Right-Wing.

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Are you now saying that the militia is not all the people?

 

[hadit]

Of course.
The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.

The State not Individuals of the People.

That's not what it says. You're just making that up.

Yes, it is. You simply have nothing but right wing fantasy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Says nothing about the right of a state to be armed. On the contrary, it says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. You keep missing that vital piece.

That is Your misunderstanding like is usual for right wing fantasists.

Those are the words that are there, that apparently you don't see.

 

[hadit]

Which has no effect in Arkansas.

It is an example of a State's right. All States have a similar clause.

We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.

 

[danielpalos]

Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy. In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.

Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.

Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it. Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.

Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.

It has more to do with our Second Amendment than your right wing fantasy, Individual and Singular rights.

Do I really need to point out that you're vainly introducing new things, hoping to distract from the core subject because you don't have anything left?

Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms? You need more than ad hominems to prove your argument.

 

[danielpalos]

No, that's a reason given for the right being protected, but the right itself is independent of a militia.

Not true. How can criminals of the People be Infringed as is customary and usual; if Your point of view is correct?

You're the one who keeps insisting the militia is all of the people, and you keep posting quotes to that effect. Apparently you haven't been noticing that you're destroying your own argument. Are you now saying it's not?

lol. You simply have no logic or reason for a valid rebuttal and Have to resort to right wing fantasy, like is usual for the Right-Wing.

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Are you now saying that the militia is not all the people?

Nope; that is just your misunderstanding, like usual for the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

Of course.
The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.

The State not Individuals of the People.

That's not what it says. You're just making that up.

Yes, it is. You simply have nothing but right wing fantasy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Says nothing about the right of a state to be armed. On the contrary, it says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. You keep missing that vital piece.

That is Your misunderstanding like is usual for right wing fantasists.

Those are the words that are there, that apparently you don't see.

I see them quite well. Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not individual liberty or natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Which has no effect in Arkansas.

It is an example of a State's right. All States have a similar clause.

We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.

What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment? Our Second Amendment is quite clear. The People are the Militia.

 

[hadit]

Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy. In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.

Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.

Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it. Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.

Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.

It has more to do with our Second Amendment than your right wing fantasy, Individual and Singular rights.

Do I really need to point out that you're vainly introducing new things, hoping to distract from the core subject because you don't have anything left?

Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms? You need more than ad hominems to prove your argument.

Who is saying they cannot? That's not even on the radar screen.

 

[hadit]

Which has no effect in Arkansas.

It is an example of a State's right. All States have a similar clause.

We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.

What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment? Our Second Amendment is quite clear. The People are the Militia.

Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

 

[danielpalos]

Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy. In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.

Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.

Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it. Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.

Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.

It has more to do with our Second Amendment than your right wing fantasy, Individual and Singular rights.

Do I really need to point out that you're vainly introducing new things, hoping to distract from the core subject because you don't have anything left?

Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms? You need more than ad hominems to prove your argument.

Who is saying they cannot? That's not even on the radar screen.

Only if you ignore history. Why was there Ever any "don't ask don't tell" legislation?

 

[danielpalos]

Which has no effect in Arkansas.

It is an example of a State's right. All States have a similar clause.

We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.

What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment? Our Second Amendment is quite clear. The People are the Militia.

Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

What unconstitutional laws?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Our Second Amendment is Constitutional law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?

Yes, you butt pirates and trannies can keep and bear arms. Nobody cares whose dick you suck or chop off. That is HARDLY a qualifier within the meaning of the 2A. Totally irrelevant.